Ghostbusters (2016) Review

Abandon all hope of not having the movie spoiled, ye who enter here.

Hollywood is bringing on the zombie apocalypse by reviving every dead franchise it can get its hands on. We’re talking biblical proportions here, people. Everything from Nightmare on Elm Street to Total Recall to The Rocky Horror Picture Show (why?!). What makes it worse is that many of these remakes range from bad to okay. Sure, the revivals of Jurassic Park and Mad Max surpassed expectations (the formal financially, the later critically), but those are exceptions. Some will point out Star Wars, but that franchise never really went away. And now with Disney remaking all of their previous movies, it’s hard not to see this as the end times.

So of course Ghostbusters got remade. It’s one of the most beloved nostalgic properties from the 80s that was popular enough to spawn a sequel, TV shows, and video games. Hell, there were plans for a third movie, which I assume was passed on due to the death of Harold Ramis. It’s also understandable that people were not happy with the idea of remaking Ghostbusters. With the vast majority of reboots and sequels being disappointing, it’s no wonder that there was uproar over this reboot.

What did take me aback was how this movie somehow became the battleground for gender politics. The decision to put women in the main roles was viewed by a small, but vocal, group of people as some kind of declaration of war against men. Really. As a result, feminists began championing the film as a beacon of progress for women (sure, casting women in roles popularized by men is a good step forward, but the movie itself could still be terrible). This put many people, myself included, in an awkward position: remaking Ghostbusters is a terrible idea and the trailers was terrible, but hating it because the cast is all women is ridiculous. This resulted in a flame war with both sides yelling past one another. Needless to say, the experience was not fun.

As for my personal relationship with Ghostbusters? I really don’t have one. I watched the first movie only a few days before seeing the reboot. I was familiar with the premise, actors, dialogue, and amazing theme song, but I had never seen it in its entirety. Overall, I liked it a lot. It was funny, quotable, and well acted. And I love Janine! There are things about the movie that I didn’t care for (the relationship between Venkman and Dana didn’t work for me at all, Winston gets so little screen time, not nearly enough of Janine, etc), but I enjoyed the movie and would gladly see it again. And, in case you’re wondering, my favorite Ghostbuster is Egon Spengler (“I collect spores, molds, and fungus”). I think I would have liked it more if I saw it when I was younger. So, going into this movie, I had no emotional attachment to this franchise and, despite my tendencies towards feminism, I didn’t see this as a hill worth dying on.

So after all those months of fighting over this movie, the threats and tears that resulted, the sheer chaos that ensued and engulfed the entire internet, how was the actual movie? Hold onto your butts, people! IT’S…

…okay. It’s just a serviceable summer comedy. Not as good as the first movie and there are lots of problems that weight it down, but it was an enjoyable experience nonetheless.

So all that buildup was for nothing. Can’t say I’m surprised.

So let’s talk about the good stuff!

Ladybusters!

It’s funny that the big stink over this movie (aside from the very idea of remaking Ghostbusters) was about the leads being female when they were actually the best part. Each of the actresses are funny and memorable with the stand outs being Leslie Jones as an MTA worker with vast knowledge the history of New York and Kate McKinnon as the eccentric engineer who builds all the Ghostbusters’ contraptions. Meanwhile, while Kristin Wiig and Melissa McCarthy get lots of funny lines, their bits are considerably toned down. What’s great is that the new characters is that they don’t feel like stand-ins for the original roles. Sure, they occupy similar roles to the original (Erin and Venkman, Abby and Ray, Holtzmann and Egon, Patty and Winston), but each one is unique in their own way. Plus, the fact that they’re women is almost never remarked upon. They aren’t praised or demeaned because of their gender. There’s a throwaway line here and there, but nothing major.

Laugh Out Loud

This movie had me in stitches several times. There were some bits that were clearly improvised and went on for a bit too long, but there were a lot of laughs to be had. Each actress has a different comedic style that matched their personality and they worked well off of each other. McKinnon was the most consistently funny, but Jones had the best bits. The biggest laugh for me was after Abby gets possessed and Patty bitchslaps the spirit out of her. I also loved Patty’s encounter with the mannequins. Lamentably, Ghostbusters (2016) is not as quotable as the original. I can’t recall very many lines that work on their own except for a few (“The power of Patty compels you!”, “Who’s the flying beefcake?”, etc). I’m sure I can find more if I watch it again.

Gadgets and Ghostbusting

 Ghostbusters (2016) takes the concept of people capturing ghosts and expands upon it. The main way it does this involves creating new inventions. They still have the proton packs, but Holtzmann creates even more devices for them to use. I couldn’t tell you the names of the new inventions if you asked me to, but the devices are definitely memorable. One device can shred ghosts into pieces, another lets them punch the ghosts, and there are laser whips.

 On top of that, we get to see a lot more ghostbusting this time around. Let’s face it. The original movie wasn’t very action packed. Aside from capturing Slimer and the climax with Gozer and the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man, most of the actual ghostbusting is explained in a montage of newspaper headlines. In this movie, not only do they capture more ghosts on screen, but the scenes are bigger than ever. I also really like the ghost designs. No, they don’t look anything like the ghosts in the first movie, but they had interesting designs. I especially like the ones that look like giant parade float balloons.

Alas, despite all the good in the movie, there was also a lot of bad that’s hard to ignore.

Kevin is Too Stupid to Function

Of the main cast, the weak link is Chris Hemsworth. He plays Kevin, the Ghostbusters’ secretary. Even without comparing him to Janine (who is the best!), he’s not a compelling or interesting character. Here’s how Kevin is defined: he’s hot and stupid. Like, really stupid. Like, so stupid it’s a wonder how he managed to make it out the front door let alone apply for this job. Hemsworth has good comedic timing and he fully commits to the dumb hottie archetype, but his character was unbearably stupid. Also, these women are breaking so many rules regarding sexual harassment, especially Erin, and it’s not cute or funny. Maybe this is a deliberate attempt to switch the gender politics by having the male character be the object of affection, but that’s not the same as subversion. Also, pointing it out doesn’t count as subversion either (then again, the first movie had a similar problem).

Pointless Cameos

Ideally, it should be nice to see the original cast again, but it was distracting every time. The only two that don’t show up are Rick Moranis (retired) and Harold Ramis (dead), although there is a bust of Harold Ramis in the university Erin works at. Annie Potts’s cameo was the best because she was playing a similar character. The only one who gets a character is Bill Murray, who plays a James Randi-esque skeptic who doesn’t believe in the Ghostbusters’ antics. I expected him to occupy the same role as Walter Peck, serving as an auxiliary antagonist for the Ghostbusters, but he just gets killed off having affected nothing. You could argue that Walter Peck was more or less superfluous to the plot of the first movie, but (1) he’s the reason all the ghosts get released and (2), failing that, he’s a lot more memorable. For goodness sake, Slimer had a bigger impact on the plot. Yep, Slimer shows up and steels the Ecto-1 and it’s pretty funny. And there’s a female Slimer. Um, okay.

And Ozzy had a cameo, too. Was he in Ghostbusters and I just didn’t notice? Maybe the sequel? I’m confused.

Lame Villain

By far, the worst thing about this movie was the villain Rowan. Whereas the main antagonist of the first movie was a freaking god, this one was…a basement dwelling internet troll. No, seriously. He’s this jaded, nihilistic loser who wants to unleash ghosts because he was bullied. It’s as lame as it sounds. I get how this might have worked on paper. Erin gets bullied as a kid for seeing a ghost and tries to make a better life for herself while Rowan’s experience being bullied fuels his desire for revenge. He could have been a great foil for Erin, but we just get a bitter, angry jerk. He gets a bit more interesting after he possesses Kevin, but he’s still super boring.

Final Verdict

At the end of the day, Ghostbusters (2016) is just fine. The sum of its parts are greater than its whole. I wouldn’t mind seeing parts of it again. If they end up making a sequel, I’ll probably see it. There were things that worked and things that didn’t. It will not ruin your childhood. Your copy of Ghostbusters isn’t going anywhere and your memory of it will not be in any way tainted. Can we please move on?

Now how about that trailer for Trolls? Now THAT’S worth raging over.

Casting DiCaprio as Rumi: Hollywood Has Learned Nothing from #OscarsSoWhite

What better way to kick things off than by touching on a controversial topic?

I’m aware that words like “diversity” and “representation” get thrown around very liberally and sometimes incorrectly. I know that it can be annoying when it seems like someone just wants to pick a piece of media apart instead of just enjoying it. Believe me, I get it. I’m also aware that this controversy is just the latest in a long string of bad decisions indicating that Hollywood refuse to acknowledge that it has a problem.

For those who aren’t aware, Gladiator screenwriter David Franzoni is working on a script for a movie about Jalal al-Din Rumi, who is one of the most well renowned poets in Persian history. The controversy? He wants Leonardo DiCaprio to play Rumi.

Honestly, I’m less angry and more tired.

Some background: I am an American of Persian descent. My mom is from Iran and my dad is from India – although his family is also Persian. However, I’m considered a terrible Persian. I don’t speak Farsi, I don’t like Persian food, I’ve never been to Iran, and I’m not as well versed in its history and culture.
That having been said, my heritage is a part of who I am and I am proud of that fact. I also know that the great poet Rumi is a very important figure in Iranian and Afghani history – he was born in what is now considered Afghanistan – so having a lavish Hollywood production about the man is a really big deal.

 

What makes it an even bigger deal is that this would be an amazing opportunity for Middle Eastern actors to star in a prestigious biopic that wants to humanize them. Most Middle Eastern and Muslim actors are stuck with stereotypical roles that paint them as either out-of-touch foreigners with a hilarious accent, perpetrators of mass murder, objects of sexual objectification (usually women), or victims of religious fundamentalism (again, usually women). Even worse, sometimes they don’t even get to play these roles. Instead, they go to white or ambiguously brown actors.

Sure, we can expect that kind of thing from Old Hollywood where Othello was played by white actors in blackface and everyone was more or less cool with it, but we’ve seen this in so many recent movies including 300, Not Without My Daughter, and Prince of Persia. Both Rodrigo Santoro and Alfred Molina play villainous, irredeemable characters who are too cartoony to be taken seriously. Meanwhile, Prince of Persia has actors like Gemma Arterton, Jake Gyllenhaal, Ben Kingsley, and Alfred Molina (again) as well as an assortment of other non-Iranian actors. And Ben Kingsley being half Indian doesn’t count.

Even in movies that want to show Iranians in a sympathetic light, we still get non-Iranian actors playing these roles. Jon Stewart’s Rosewater is about journalist Maziar Bahari being imprisoned and interrogated in an Iranian prison. Bahari is played by Mexican actor Gael García Bernal. The leads of September in Shiraz are Adrian Brody and Salma Hayak. At least Salma Hayak is half Lebanese, which is more than I can say for Adrian Brody (unless his character isn't Persian, but I see no indication that this is the case). And there's Ben Kingsley in House of Sand and Fog. And before you say it, no, casting Shohreh Aghdashloo or any other Persian actor in your movie does not make the rest of the casting okay.

And although this isn’t about Persians in particular, let’s not forget the many times that Jesus Christ, a Jewish Palestinian, has been played by non-Middle Eastern and non-black (since it’s interpreted by some that Jesus might have been African, which is not at all far fetched) actors including Willem Dafoe, Diogo Morgado, Jim Caviezel, Jeffrey Hunter, Ted Neeley, Max von Sydow, Cliff Curtis, and Rodrigo Santoro (again, in the upcoming Ben-Hur retelling).

Yes, The Stoning of Soraya M and A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night had all-Persian casts, but those are the exceptions.

Some will say that Leonardo DiCaprio is a good actor, so he should be allowed to play Rumi anyway. Leonardo DiCaprio is a fantastic actor. He gives one of my favorite performances of all time in What’s Eating Gilbert Grape? where he plays a mentally disabled, possibly autistic, child. Like everyone else, I was happy to see him finally win an Oscar. I’m not denying that he’s talented because he is.

But he isn’t Persian. He’s not even Middle Eastern. And neither is Robert Downey Jr., who the screenwriter wants in the role of Shams of Tabriz.

Also, DiCaprio and Downey Jr. didn’t audition for anything. It’s not like there was a casting call and they were picked because they were the best. They’re being considered because they’re celebrities. And some might say that there are no celebrities of Middle Eastern descent to choose from. You realize no one just becomes a celebrity, right? Don’t you think racism and a lack of opportunity have made it difficult for Middle Eastern actors to become famous? They can’t audition for star-making roles if there aren’t any and when the few that exist just go to white or ambiguously brown actors. Don’t you think this would be a fantastic opportunity to create a Middle Eastern-American celebrity? Remember, Hollywood, “If you build it, [they] will come.”

And, again, casting Shohreh Aghdashloo or other Iranian actors in supporting roles will not make your whitewashing okay. But you should still do it anyway.

I’m aware that none of this is set in stone, which is why I urge Hollywood to learn from its mistakes. They keep casting white actors in roles meant for people of color and giving half-baked apologies ever time. After Exodus: Gods and Kings casted white actors as Egyptians, we were angry. After the disaster that was Gods of Egypt, with white actors playing Egyptians once again, we were told that this wouldn’t happen again. The same thing happened after Doctor Strange was cast. Some would argue that the remake of Ghost in the Shell with Scarlett Johansson as Motoko Kusanagi is part of the conversation, too (personally, I disagree, but that’s another topic for another day and everyone has a right to their own opinion).

Hollywood, apologies don’t mean anything if you continue to make the same mistakes.

I’m not a belligerent person. I don’t like engaging in fights. I’d rather write about things that I love like power metal, Gothic romance, Disney, Tom Waits, Nutcracker movies, and Crimson Peak. I’m usually a “can’t we all just get along” kind of person. But after hearing about this, I had to get my feelings out.

And this isn’t all I have to say about the subject, but it’s all I have time for. Just know that this is only the tip of the iceberg.